Too many glide waxes?

Paul,

I agree that the Swix Wax Wizard is a useful tool, especially since
they don't give only one recommendation, instead giving you the option
of "good'," "better," and "best."

But if you race in a wide range of conditions, the Wizard would lead
you to a pretty big box of Swix waxes, ranging from CHs through LFs and
HFs to pure fluoros. I know I'll never go very fast so I've decided to
focus on keeping it as simple as possible without having dog-slow skis.

Thanks for the comments.

Russ

Rex blue was a good wax for old snow in the teens F. It had a good
range, so it still worked ok into the 20s. For sharp snow, Start Blue
was a much better wax in the teens F.

To me it seems that adding a little flouro to waxes really helped
speed. I'm familiar with Swix, but I would also guess that Toko, Star,
Solda etc all make LF waxes that would beat Rex blue in this range, and
Rex blue only really seemed to do well in old snow. (All this is very
opinionated, but I kind of feel the same way about Rex Green vs. Start
Green.)

LF4 is a great wax in cold snow at Midwest humidities, but when you get
to those very cold conditions (styrofoam conditions around 0F and
colder, new snow), that's when I would consider CH4. So if the skis
glide at all, LF4, if they don't maybe CH4. I have tried waxing a few
times with CH4, and then using LF3 on top and had good skis also. (COLL
a couple years ago.) I think that's the only time I tried LF3. The
difference between CH4 and LF4 is probably pretty small, but I tend to
go with LF4 over a layer or two of CH4 in the cold, tough conditions.

Jay Wenner

Hi Russ,
Here are a couple of ideas for you:
At the beginning of the season, I order up a 900 gram 'Combi' bulk wax
of Swix CH. They make two models. The Nordic Combi (CH012N-900) has one each
CH4, CH6, CH7, CH8 and CH10. But I like the Alpine Combi (CH012A-900)
better, as it skips the CH10 (32 - 50 degrees F) and replaces it with two
CH8. The CH8 is a common temp range and you can also use it for base prep
and storage wax.
Retail cost is $70, so you are paying $.077 per gram compared to $.092
for a 500 gram bulk Rex Blue, $.093 for a 750 gram Start Green bulk and
$.080 for 500 gram bulk Toko World Loppet (System 3), based on prices from
the New Moon ski catalog. You might have to ask a shop to order it for you
or they may have the bulk in stock for use in their wax room.
I ski 8-15 hours per week. The 900 grams lasts a year. I wax about every
3-4 hours of skiing with CH. There is overlap of the waxes, so if the wax is
totally off, I just go a little slower in training.
For racing, I'd add 60 gram LF7 and LF8. If you can afford it, HF8.
In lesser important races, I run the LF series to save money or CH if
low humidity.
Generally, I will wax colder if the forecast is right in between two wax
temperature ranges. Usually the snow stays colder than air temperatures and
the cold will stay longer in the woods where it is sheltered from the sun.
CH4 is a very good wax and is all I use in cold races. I was as fast or
faster in glide than the people I'm with in cold condition races. The CH4 is
such a hard wax (harder than LF4), that it can be difficult to put on
compared to Start Green. If you try and drip it on the whole ski, it will
flake off when you go to melt it in. Zach Caldwell give me a good tip. He
said to just drip on a foot or so, then melt it in a bit, then drip on
another foot and melt in. Once the ski is covered, go and melt it in as you
normally do. I use less heat these days waxing. I'll make 2-3 passes,
melting the wax, then set the ski apart. I'll work on a couple more skis
with 2-3 passes, then go back to the first ski and make a couple more
passes.
In the past when I use to use Rex Blue, it has been a good general
purpose wax, especially towards the cold end of it's range. However, there
is a certain combination of new snow on melted wet snow around 28 degrees F
that causes Rex Blue to be like klister. Unbelieveably slow.
Generally less structure has worked better for me. I believe many people
over rill, especially in wetter conditions.
The Swix wax wizard is suppose to help ease decision making, with an eye
on what people are willing to pay. In their book, it says the HF line is
"for Racing Pro, World Cup and Professionals, Demand the best performance at
all cost". LF line is "Racing, Masters and Amateur Racers. Spend a lot of
money and time on skiing. Want top performance".
I can't tell you the speed difference between using LF and HF, but I
would guess it is not as significant for non-World Cup/National level races
as you might think, especially compared to the issues of ski flex , fittness
&
structure. Perhaps Zach or other more knowledgeable tuners could give some
insight on the speed differences.
You will have competitive skis using CH4, CH6, LF7 and LF8 (HF8).

Good luck!


--
Paul Haltvick
Bay Design and Build - LLC
Engineering, Construction and Information Technology Services
FSx - Fischer / Swix Racing
Ashland, WI.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Paul,

I agree that the Swix Wax Wizard is a useful tool, especially since
they don't give only one recommendation, instead giving you the option
of "good'," "better," and "best."

But if you race in a wide range of conditions, the Wizard would lead
you to a pretty big box of Swix waxes, ranging from CHs through LFs and
HFs to pure fluoros. I know I'll never go very fast so I've decided to
focus on keeping it as simple as possible without having dog-slow skis.

Thanks for the comments.

Russ

Paul,

Thanks for the suggestions - buying in bulk is definitely a bargain but
I'd never noticed the Alpine Kit - definitely a more useful collection.


This post has been interesting because I've learned that while others
respect Rex Blue they don't rate it nearly as highly as I do. Maybe I
need to go back to my wax box and spend a little more time with my
collection of Swix CHs, and LFs - I've acquired them all over the years
and I've always liked them but I've used them less and less as I used
Rex Blue more and more. I've also collected Swix HF6 and HF8 as well
as two Swix pure fluoros, a cold and a warm (I don't recal their exact
numbers) that are several years old and that I haven't used for years
because I don't want to risk burning a base, and also because I doubt
that I'd recognize the right conditions in which to use them.

What I was hoping someone would say is, "Yes, Rex Blue is great and all
your other suggestions are, too, and just cork in some Rex TK72 when
it's a little warmer or more humid and you'll be all set."

I agree with you that Rex overstates the range of Blue and they more or
less 'fess up to that on their web page where they say that it's best
at 18-23 degrees F and in dry snow. But then it wouldn't surprise me
if most waxes aren't best in the middle of their stated ranges.

The reason I asked the question the way I did (too many glide waxes?)
was my inclinaton to lean strongly to the "mini" side of the "mini-max"
equation: maximize your gain, minimize your loss. By that I mean that
at the high end of racing, a good skier asks how to get the "maximum"
out of his/her collection of skis, structures and waxes. My goal, out
of laziness and a very strong aversion to fretting at the last minute
about choosing a ski, structure and wax, was to find the "minimum"
route to acceptably fast skis. And my minimum may be pretty low - if I
finish with my limbs and gear intact, I've had a good time; if I've
been able to outglide a few people on the downhills, then it's been a
super day.

Re the tip on CH4, I've also found that ironing cooler, and
fractionally, is the way to go - I touch the corner of the iron to the
ski so the wax runs off in a ribbon rather than in droplets so when I
iron it the iron glides smoothly, rather than in fits and starts (and
Zach approves of this, done carefully) and I do 1/2 a ski at a time
and, like you, let the ski cool a bit before giving the ski a complete
ironing pass from tip to tail. Maybe I'll try doing the ski in 3 or 4
segments next time - might work even better.

I also agree with the tip about waxing a little colder - start areas
are usually open and sunny while the race track usually takes you into
the woods where it's colder. Your comment about the importance of flex
and structure fits what I've heard from other experienced racers as
well.

Muchas gracias to those who have taken the time to pass along their
thoughts - I'm very grateful!

Russ

wrote:
....

My goal, out
of laziness and a very strong aversion to fretting at the last minute
about choosing a ski, structure and wax, was to find the "minimum"
route to acceptably fast skis. And my minimum may be pretty low - if I
finish with my limbs and gear intact, I've had a good time; if I've
been able to outglide a few people on the downhills, then it's been a
super day.

I'm with this 100000%. Frankly, unless a guy has multiple skis, waxes
them differently, and then does meaningful wax testing - you can't
possibly expect to do any better than what you've said. I know guys
who obsess about wax, have a zillion options, but all they do to get
the best wax (what they think is best, anyway), is to think, read, and
wax. You can do all the thinking and analysis you want, but within
any temp range, there are many options and the ONLY way you can tell if
one is better than another is testing. Therefore, I essentially have
one option for all my normal temp/condition situations (say 5-6
different basic situations for glide). I don't have several options for
each subtle version of the basic situations because I have no way of
testing them on that given day.

I never have total dogs, usually outglide as many or more than outglide
me. What else could I possibly aspire to?

Re the tip on CH4, I've also found that ironing cooler, and
fractionally, is the way to go - I touch the corner of the iron to the
ski so the wax runs off in a ribbon rather than in droplets so when I
iron it the iron glides smoothly, rather than in fits and starts (and
Zach approves of this, done carefully) and I do 1/2 a ski at a time
and, like you, let the ski cool a bit before giving the ski a complete
ironing pass from tip to tail. Maybe I'll try doing the ski in 3 or 4
segments next time - might work even better.

I've taken to this also for the really hard waxes. I set my iron quite
a bit cooler than called for, and also quite a bit cooler than I used
to. I generally gently iron in the wax just barely enough to melt it
in - set it aside to cool while I work on another ski, and rotate
through them 2 - 3 times, spending very little time each time, but
cumulatively keeping the ski cooler than before, but at that
temperature for quite a while longer. Sort of like the poor man's hot
box.

I also agree with the tip about waxing a little colder - start areas
are usually open and sunny while the race track usually takes you into
the woods where it's colder. Your comment about the importance of flex
and structure fits what I've heard from other experienced racers as
well.

Just in general "colder" wax often works OK in warmer conditions, but
the vice versa can be horrible. I always wax colder expecially when I
don't want to mess with changing my wax through the week when I'm
training. Just put on a fairly cold wax (say CH6 or Toko Blue), then
just ski it.

Thanks for the excellent comments.

Camilo,

Thanks for the kind remarks.

I like the "poor man's hot box" - that's a nice way of putting it. I
wonder if there aren't quite a few of us who have gradually found our
way to waxing with lower temps. I got there the hard way - I didn't
really turn any of my bases crispy, but over time a couple of them
became sealed to the point that stonegrinding was necessary to bring
them back up to speed.

It sounds like you've found a manageable number of waxes to fit the
conditions in which you ski. If you feel like sharing your secrets,
I'm all ears.

Thanks again.

Russ

Hi Folks - I've got a couple of simple suggestions for completely
minimizing the number of waxes you carry, and still having very
competitive skis.

First, you can't ignore the importance of fluorocarbons. Specifically,
you MUST have pure fluoros in the game if you want to be competitive in
many conditions. And the dirty secret is that, once you've got a good
pure fluoro, the underlayer becomes much less important. That's not to
say that it becomes unimportant, but it's a lot less important than if
you're trying to make fast skis WITHOUT the pure fluoro top coat.

There are a couple of options out there for relatively economical entry
to the pure fluoro game. My suggestions would be to look at Swix FC1 or
Toko Jetstream Moly rub-on. There are plenty of others that will get
you in the door too, but these two have extraordinarily broad ranges
and are relatively economical because you can rub-on a fairly thin coat
in most conditions.

So, for the bare minimalist wax box get CH4, LF6 and FC1 (or some other
pure fluoro rub-on). LF6 is often a BETTER underlayer for pure fluoros
than whatever tests fastest without a top-coat. Most people test their
underlayers without top-coats and then test fluoros with a basic
underlayer and assume that the best fluoro on top of the best
underlayer is the best wax job. That's definitely not always the case.
Quite often a mid-fluoro and somewhat harder underlayer is the best
thing under the best top-coat.

So it's simple. In really cold dry snow use CH4. In moderate temps and
dry or unglazed snow use LF6. In wetter snow or glazing conditions at
almost any temperature use the FC1 or jetstream moly on top of LF6.

Finally, a lot of people are extremely concerned about pure fluoros
hardening or damaging their bases. This is an appropriate concern, but
it generally has a lot more to do with the very high iron temps used to
iron in pure fluoros. I recommend investing in a roto-cork for pure
fluoro application - especially when you're using rub-ons. Again, it's
not always the best, but sometimes it is. Get a cheap corded drill at
your local hardware store that will run 2000-2500 rpms - you can
usually find something for around $15. And get some CH8 to clean and
recondition your skis after using the pure fluoro.

In my experience this approach will yield the best bang for a
relatively small cash outlay. There are many additional gains to be
made, but the once you go beyond this point diminishing returns start
to set-in. You get the clearest idea of how effective a wax application
is when you're working for a large team. I've done a lot of waxing for
the New England JO team over the years. And when the whole team (of 50
kids) does really well on the same wax you've got a pretty good idea
that the variation in skis, flexes, grinds and everything else is more
or less takes those variables out of play. So I'm comfortable saying
there are very large gains to be made by getting everything right.
However , I also know that it takes a lot of work, and even having
spent the time, it's not always going to be clear when you look at one
person at a time. Even on a day when we absolutely nail it for the JO
team there will be a few kids with bad skis. If that happened in
isolation they'd probably think the wax was bad... My point is that it
gets really hard to parse all the variables when you've got just one
pair of skis to work with. So there's an definite argument for keeping
it simple.

Zach

Zach,

Thanks for the reply - you've packed a lot of useful information into a
short space. The prospect of getting the wax kit down to about 4 waxes
is VERY appealing!

I like your illustration of waxing for the JO team - if a wax worked
well for a large number of skiers, relative to the wax used by other
competitors, then it should tend to "wash out" the variables of flex
and structure. It sounds like a useful alternative to calibrated skis,
speed traps, etc., as a way of measuring a wax's glide speed.

Your point about parsing the variables for a single skier is well
taken. Even if the skier brings a whole quiver to the race and tries
out several beforehand, he'll race on just one pair and won't know at
the end of the day if a different pair/wax/structure/flex would have
been better.

Does your enthusiasm for a pure fluoro apply as strongly for skiers in
Minnesota as in Vermont? I think we tend to be a little drier here and
I worry about adding a fluoro only to find it was a mistake. Do you
decide to use one when you know the humidity is high and/or you can
easily make a snowball that sticks together? My impression is that
people who get the most out of fluoros are those who use them pretty
often and learn by trial and error when they should and shouldn't be
used. Some of us cheapskates (like me) tend to save it for a big
occasion and then realize we're venturing into unknown territory just
when we shouldn't be - on race day.

But I'm not so cheap that I won't look into FC1 and Jetstream - I've
got a birthday coming up and maybe my wife will spring for it. Around
here Rex TK72 has some strong fan support. While the initial cost is
about the same as the other pure fluoros, it's a rub on that can also
be ironed, and is said to be useful in a wide range of temps,
economical because so little is needed, easy to apply, and often helps
and never hurts. If you have any experience with it I'd be interested
in your opinion.

Thanks again!

Russ

Hi Russ - Minnesotan moisture is a lot like Vermont moisture. While you
may not get into the pure fluoro conditions quite as often as we do,
you still need the stuff when you need it. The reasons I specifically
recommended FC1 and the Toko JS Moly is that both products perform very
well in drying conditions. It's a real bummer to put on fluoros and
have them be a liability!

The snowball test is generall a fine indication. But I find it more
helpful to look at tracks where people are skiing. If the tracks for
any kind of glaze it suggests to me that, under pressure, moisture is
migrating to the interface between the ski and the snow. Regardless of
temperature the right fluoro is very likely to be helpful. We raced on
FC1 out in Fairbanks last November at questionably legal race
temperatures.

I did say that other products would work well too. TK72 is a great
rub-on, without question. But it's more hit or miss in my experience
than FC1. I would put Solda HP05 high on any list for broad range and
"seldom miss" characteristics. But it's hard to apply well and tends to
be more expensive per application. I'm sure there are others out there
that work really well. I usually travel with fifteen or twenty top-coat
options and have ended up testing as many as 12 for a given race. But
most of those are far too specialized for the purposes we're
discussing.

Z



wrote:
Zach,

Thanks for the reply - you've packed a lot of useful information into a
short space. The prospect of getting the wax kit down to about 4 waxes
is VERY appealing!

I like your illustration of waxing for the JO team - if a wax worked
well for a large number of skiers, relative to the wax used by other
competitors, then it should tend to "wash out" the variables of flex
and structure. It sounds like a useful alternative to calibrated skis,
speed traps, etc., as a way of measuring a wax's glide speed.

Your point about parsing the variables for a single skier is well
taken. Even if the skier brings a whole quiver to the race and tries
out several beforehand, he'll race on just one pair and won't know at
the end of the day if a different pair/wax/structure/flex would have
been better.

Does your enthusiasm for a pure fluoro apply as strongly for skiers in
Minnesota as in Vermont? I think we tend to be a little drier here and
I worry about adding a fluoro only to find it was a mistake. Do you
decide to use one when you know the humidity is high and/or you can
easily make a snowball that sticks together? My impression is that
people who get the most out of fluoros are those who use them pretty
often and learn by trial and error when they should and shouldn't be
used. Some of us cheapskates (like me) tend to save it for a big
occasion and then realize we're venturing into unknown territory just
when we shouldn't be - on race day.

But I'm not so cheap that I won't look into FC1 and Jetstream - I've
got a birthday coming up and maybe my wife will spring for it. Around
here Rex TK72 has some strong fan support. While the initial cost is
about the same as the other pure fluoros, it's a rub on that can also
be ironed, and is said to be useful in a wide range of temps,
economical because so little is needed, easy to apply, and often helps
and never hurts. If you have any experience with it I'd be interested
in your opinion.

Thanks again!

Russ